Remember also that kids, say 12 to 15 years old access the Internet and may read the article. If a kid like that makes a silly decision to believe Ray Comfort because we didn’t refute the arguments properly in an incomplete version that kid may later go somewhere like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_University Liberty University] instead of to a university where students are taught to think. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 12:26, 4 November 2011 (CDT)

Remember also that kids, say 12 to 15 years old access the Internet and may read the article. If a kid like that makes a silly decision to believe Ray Comfort because we didn’t refute the arguments properly in an incomplete version that kid may later go somewhere like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_University Liberty University] instead of to a university where students are taught to think. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 12:26, 4 November 2011 (CDT)

+

+

Cut Kazim some slack man, the world isn't going to end tomorrow if we get one more christian.

+

Hey Kazim, start plugging the show again on the Non-Prophets, its been a while since I heard a shameless plug.Enjoy the honeymoon. [[User:WhatsAGoodUsername?|WhatsAGoodUsername?]]

Latest revision as of 05:57, 7 November 2011

Contents

Ray's books

Anyone mind if I started doing some critiques of Ray's books? Jwissick 23:40, 18 March 2010 (CDT)

Critiques of Ray's books are very much appreciated. Proxima Centauri 04:24, 29 September 2011 (CDT)

Ray's Way of the Master programs

As you can see, we here at IronChariots have reviewed and critiqued a lot of Ray's episodes, but we still have a long way to go. I continue to modify and start new articles, but due to a loss of brain cells from watching Ray's material, I must rest for my headaches. Therefore I ask everyone here at IronChariots, if you can, please start a review of any of the untouched episodes. I would start looking for them on GoogleVideo. It may seem like a drag (indeed it is), but a review can be done quickly, the only thing that takes time is to be sure you get every word recorded. You can use the other reviews as a model for yours. An important thing is, once you heard it on their episode, you will differently hear it again. Virtually every argument uttered in their programs is repeated in their books, tracts, debates, everywhere every time. That is why reviewing and critiquing these program are important. Thank you for your help. Wolf 14:34, 3 October 2011 (CDT)

Google

This article and the RationalWiki article on Ray Comfort are both on the first page of Google. Congratulations! Perhaps we need to make the two articles more different from each other as readers will click on both links. Proxima Centauri 04:24, 29 September 2011 (CDT)

Point taken. This site takes more of a one-sided view. Of course, there parts that are too big that both sites must address. But this site should focus more on deconstructing his arguments, but RW should be a bit briefer. However, I think that RW should keep the commentary on Comfort's multiple debates. I think RW should be very critical on parts where Comfort bashes science and evolution, whereas IronChariots can do that too but may focus more on Ray's arguments for God. Sound good? Wolf 15:28, 30 September 2011 (CDT)

Even after the changes Matt just reverted, this article is still way, way, WAY out of hand. It is massive and unfocused. There are detailed rebuttals of specific arguments which ought to only appear on their own pages. Why the heck is there a detailed "walkthrough" of multiple works of his rather than creating separate pages for them? Who cares about a lengthy section on Ray's specific criticisms of evolution when there are already pages on arguments against evolution? Why aren't "banana argument," "parachute argument," etc. simply links to their own pages?

Do you guys understand what a wiki is? This is for short, focused articles with hyperlinks to relevant information, not gigantic information dumps and a collection of opinionated essays. If somebody doesn't clean this up I'm just going to start deleting massive sections. And the same criticism goes for a whole lot of articles the two of you have been working on. --Kazim 03:27, 15 October 2011 (CDT)

It seems there has been a massive misunderstanding about what this wiki is about. The best probably is if the old guard clean up this wiki to the way you want things, we can move our work to other wikis with different policy. This will mean a lot of work for us transfering work and for you cleaning up but we didn't mean harm. Proxima Centauri 09:09, 15 October 2011 (CDT)

"Favorite arguments" section

I'm stripping out a large amount of argumentation in this section. The details of HOW Ray Comfort chooses to argue this or that point are overkill. I'd much rather see a summary of the arguments followed by links to the appropriate rebuttal pages. Also, stuff like "OF COURSE Ray Comfort misrepresents" is needless opinion-slanted language. If you feel that some of the removed text is not properly covered on the linked pages, please check the history and put it in the appropriate place. --Kazim 15:54, 31 October 2011 (CDT)

Shouldn't there be a section dedicated to replying to some of his arguements? I don't see how this is counter-apologetics if we don't have a section replying to his position....WhatsAGoodUsername?

Well, that's sort of the point. Ray Comfort is but one Christian apologist among many. He puts out a large amount of material, but he's not really all that good at it and he appears to be mainly doing it to make money instead of trying to influence laws and regulations. The majority of his arguments do not originate from him (with the exception of the banana argument, which has received its own page and is ridiculous enough to merit such) and have their own pages already. The salvation page could use a good write-up and rebuttal of the notion of "salvation through grace alone", though, because that's a quite common view among evangelical Christians. However, there's just no reason to include line-by-line rebuttals of each of Ray's works, particularly when the writers can't stop lacing their own counter-arguments with bile.

For example, go back and really read what you wrote here (and the blog entry you linked to) from the "witnessing to a loved one" WotM episode rebuttal:

Comment: By no means are all drag artists gay, but drag is well known as part of the gay scene. Anyone with even partial knowledge of the gay community knows that when gay men look at something like Ray and Kirk acting together with Ray pretending to be Kirk’s "gran", some will ask themselves, “Could Ray and Kirk possibly find me cute too?” Stereotyping gay men would be unwise as is stereotyping any human beings but some are likely to wonder about Ray or Kirk pinching their cheeks the same way and more. We must assume Ray and Kirk work to bring gay men to repentance if gay men contact them. For Ray and Kirk’s followers the alternative is likely too painful to contemplate. This show does not prove conclusively that Ray and/or Kirk are gay but both are certainly encouraging gay men to, 'lust after them in their hearts'. According to Ray and Kirk's theology looking at someone with lust is damnable and equivalent to adultery so viewers may wonder about the sincerity of these two.

"Anyone with even partial knowledge of the gay community"? You've just demonstrated you either have no knowledge of the gay community whatsoever or are willing to abandon said knowledge if it gives you another stone to throw at this guy. When I removed some of your biased stuff from Ray's page and explained why, you promptly stuck it back in into a different section, until Kazim removed it again. I've seen that you're fully capable of submitting decent work when Ray Comfort isn't part of it, but you might want to consider just not touching any article about him because you clearly take it very personally and have a lot of trouble being reasonable where he's concerned.

Writing, "Anyone with even partial knowledge of the gay community" does not demonstrate anything one way or the other about my knowledge of gays. I’ll give another example, writing "Anyone with even partial knowledge of Christianity knows that Christians believe Jesus died for our sins.” is accurate and does not demonstrate lack of knowledge. Proxima Centauri 08:19, 4 November 2011 (CDT)

Read your comment on the video, please. Your "example" is not relevant to the discussion (Jesus dying for others' sins is a basic tenet of Christianity, your assertion about gay men is a derogatory stereotype). Name one gay man who watched that clip and honestly found himself with an attraction to Ray that he didn't already have. Name one who saw that clip and genuinely thought Ray and Kirk were trying to turn him on. The blog link in your comment bashes homosexuality by insinuating that calling someone "gay" is an insult. Which you are also doing by attempting to insinuate that Ray and Kirk are "acting gay" in the clip. If you watch the clip without the idea that you need to viciously attack every single thing Ray does, you'll see they're simply attempting to make a humorous demonstration of their proposed variant of the "are you a good person?" argument that is tailored to talking to family members. How is Ray and/or Kirk's sexual orientation in any way relevant? Does the substance of the argument suddenly change if a gay person makes it? Jdog 16:11, 4 November 2011 (CDT)

Obviously I don't think it should should be reverted and here's why. Articles about people should be fact-based, ideally approximating Wikipedia's neutrality standards. "So-and-so is an idiot" or "has no idea what he is talking about" are not good writing.

Articles about the arguments they make will naturally be slanted towards counter-apologetics, but weighing them down with personal invective looks unprofessional and cuts into the credibility of the wiki as a whole.

If an apologist is well known for making a particular argument and it is relevant to understanding his body of work, then you should link the appropriate article and debunk it there. If you feel that the argument is not effectively addressed at the article, address it. If you feel that the apologist's article itself comes across as too favorable towards his arguments, it probably means you should tone the focus on those arguments and bring them in line with the intended neutrality. You may just find that in trying to do so, that the article is just full of too many irrelevant details to begin with. That's certainly what I've been finding.

I'm not done fixing the neutrality here, so it's in an awkward in-between state for sure. But you've caught me a day before I get married and then go on my honeymoon, so I'm a little short on time to make changes at the moment. Matt suggested that he might lock down edits until we both have more time to work on it, and maybe that's what should be done for the next week or two. --Kazim 11:13, 4 November 2011 (CDT)

At the moment it's slanted towards Christianity, if we lock down edits for a week or two let's revert to a version where Ray Comfort's arguments are refuted and lock that down. Let's not lock down in an awkward in-between state. Proxima Centauri 11:19, 4 November 2011 (CDT)

No. Of course not. The article is progressing TOWARDS where it should be, I'm not moving it back to a version with the problems I already mentioned. If you want to propose particular edits that would get it further along towards the intention, post them here and we'll discuss whether they work or not. Personally I don't see where it's pro-Comfort, but even if it were that wouldn't particularly concern me. In order for this to be a problem we'd have to assume that somebody is coming across this site, reading only the Ray Comfort article, clicking no links, and being persuaded that Ray is right based on that. And frankly, a person who is that sloppy isn't worth losing a lot of sleep over. --Kazim 11:53, 4 November 2011 (CDT)

People who make silly mistakes can suffer.

The great moral philosopher Jeremy Bentham, founder of utilitarianism, famously said,'The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?" Most people get the point, but they treat human pain as especially worrying because they vaguely think it sort of obvious that a species' ability to suffer must be positively correlated with its intellectual capacity. [1]

Remember also that kids, say 12 to 15 years old access the Internet and may read the article. If a kid like that makes a silly decision to believe Ray Comfort because we didn’t refute the arguments properly in an incomplete version that kid may later go somewhere like Liberty University instead of to a university where students are taught to think. Proxima Centauri 12:26, 4 November 2011 (CDT)

Cut Kazim some slack man, the world isn't going to end tomorrow if we get one more christian.
Hey Kazim, start plugging the show again on the Non-Prophets, its been a while since I heard a shameless plug.Enjoy the honeymoon. WhatsAGoodUsername?

Some people say...

From the article as it stands now:

In his live apologetics, Comfort states that once someone is born-again, God forgives them for all their sins. The following is a direct quote: "Once and for all and the moment you trust in him [Jesus Christ] you are completely justified and made right with God, you are made perfect by God's grace. That has nothing to do with living a good life, pleasing God because you can't because you a lying, thieving, adulterer at heart. The only thing you can do is repent and trust in him. The minute you do, in a heartbeat God justifies you. Cleanses you of your sin and you are born again. God gives you a new heart with a new set of desires and you know you are going to escape death and damnation."

Some people find this uncomfortable as it suggests that people can commit terrible sins like rape, murder, even genocide (Hitler) and still get to heaven so long as they repent at the last minute. That message, convert and you will be saved persuades people to become followers of Ray Comfort and to start using/buying his material.

This point is surely not unique to Ray Comfort. Is there an existing argument page that already covers this somewhere? If not, can anyone propose a title so that it can be depersonalized, migrated, and linked? --Kazim 14:31, 2 November 2011 (CDT)

We have a salvation page, but it could use an overhaul. Specifically, it should include the "salvation only through grace" position, which is taken up by a very vocal subset of Christianity (including, but very much not limited to, Ray Comfort). Jdog 04:48, 4 November 2011 (CDT)

Totally agree, that is probably the best place to put that. --Kazim 11:16, 4 November 2011 (CDT)